Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 14, 2013 9:00pm-9:31pm PDT

9:00 pm
9:01 pm
business it was a way to jump start business but it definitely needs to be over so it is judiciously used if ever again. thank you >> next speaker >> how do you do commissioners and chairman fong. i'm deborah i'm a member of senior and disability action. i'm also a resident of district 6 right in the heart of the building boom and i have definitely seen and been effected by it as well. i'm here to support the idea of ending the deferral program and
9:02 pm
getting the money undergoing directly. it's pretty obvious you know when the time this of the of was made the developers were taking advantage and their streptout their money as much as possible. so if anything can help speed up their payments that would be good. i can tell you from being disabled there are a variety of uneven sidewalks like in front of the construction areas. i've fallen a lot of times because of the uneven nature of the sidewalks there. i'm going to ask you, please he said the deferral and start prussia the people who have been
9:03 pm
using the deferrals to pay up. thank you very much >> commissioners i'm john gom goldman architects. we're at 94 - you was also hired by the client to do the financial analysis. in this document that i'm reading from the planning department it doesn't describe any harm done so i was surprised to hearing hear there was harm done to the community. from what i'm reading hereafter the initial
9:04 pm
doubt there is any developer in the city who is opposed. so the question is does it harm
9:05 pm
anybody? i can tell you on our project it would be a huge difference. we're providing the affordable housing on site but even with deferring $400,000 that represents the projection equity. if we were doing the funds ourself it actually helps us. i'm sure every developer is in favor of this and i am >> thank you. >> hi i'm joe. i'm here to speak in support of ending the deferral program.
9:06 pm
i live between 15 and fourteenth street. i'm part of the homeowner association. i want to say as a resident being in the heart of the boom we've seen rents rise and people being pushed out and evictions. we've seen developers come into our neighborhood and there is a lack of communication when their plans change. we hope when the develops have had their projects passed start paying their fees and we ask you let the program expire. thank you very much >> sue i support the position
9:07 pm
and i want to expand it. i was listening to k bcs and the story was the massive increase in housing costs. i don't see it as a good. i see it as something you have to deal with it's a planning issue. i was here before there was any fees. i spent a large chunk of time in the early 70s and 80s and dealing with at the man per housing and the man from muni. every fee that was impose back to then required front end cost be paid so that the city would have is a chance to get up.
9:08 pm
this was the same on every single planning process and i've been here from easter and every time the planning commission and the planning vice president as grappled with how do you pay for litigation and if it's not gone at the giving you don't have a community. i read the real estate section every sunday. the prices are the charred and the prices that are out there for new housing is astronomical. i think a few of you would afford to live in the city. can you come into the city and
9:09 pm
rent or buy a house? i not and most of the folks here can't. i directing your attention to page 5 and 6. 6 on the backside is cheated community. i pay attention to the muni as well as to affordable housing. it's the second largest fee deferral. and we have a muni that's falling apart. if the planning commission spends hundreds of hours and i mean that literally analyzing where you have to put fees and it was always, always, always front end. you should go back to that no reason to go backwards
9:10 pm
>> any other public comment? public comment closed >> hi i'm maria. i'm the housing
9:11 pm
paid the safety net that is established to insure that those impacts are miektd is not well funded and not able to do its job. so i with the community against violence urge you to support the staff recommendation and allow the fees to sunset. thank you >> is tell you any further
9:12 pm
additional comment? >> really seeing none, opening up to commissioners. >> yeah. i have a question for staff. i'm looking at the charts on page 7 of the report. and it sort of interesting because it appears that as i believe one chart shows the fees coming in from new development and then the lower chart probably shows you cumulative that was deferred along with what would be deferred. and both appear to show a higher income initially by not having the deferral by as we move into years that reflect a slow down at least any stimulates in 2016, 17 on to 20 with the deferral
9:13 pm
you get more fees in terms of total fees. so that's an interesting thing. maybe you, comment >> there's a little lifting bit of clarification. mr. matt snider knows about this. i'll put this on the overhead to clarify the two charts >> as what we were looking at it is in flow. the top chart look at it on a fixed jerry year to year base. the upper line shows if the fee deferral doesn't happen we are higher fees.
9:14 pm
it at some point crows over and it's roughly even. and those lines aren't perfect because it's looking at actual pipeline date. and it's not even a year to year out. we thought a better description is at the top of chart. if it doesn't happen your income is cumulatively less your income because you're getting the late payment you would otherwise get two years ago you're paying less than the 20 percent now. that's our observation how the fee income would look >> i have another question. there have been statements that the fees aren't paid but the
9:15 pm
fees are paid between 15 and 20 percent a paid at the first occupancy certificate of occupancy. it's rolling in but at a different time and he hopefully, the interest is bridging the gap between the two it's not like they're not being paid. their rapidly being sold or rented >> that's correct 1 hundred percent of the fees are paid by construction permit. without the program 1 hundred percent of the fees are paid at first occupancy under the fee program and await the deferral program they're paid earlier at first construction document >> and then the clarification we spoke about earlier i think
9:16 pm
everyone should understand there if their allowed to be expired there would not be a down payment but rather all the fees would be due at first construction document and the other parts of it wouldn't be a fee fund and no interest so that's different from the past because it was application but it makes no sense but at least you've got a construction loan when your beginning construction. >> that's largely correct. the only thing that was a little bit of detail is about it is fees were paid at a range some were paid at, i.e., application
9:17 pm
but the majority of them were paid later on than first construction document. >> he the other question is we still continue with art for you with the impact fees are administered by the department of building inspectors inspection and it's centralizeed the fee collection. >> very good thank you. >> commissioner. >> i'm happy to support the staff recommendation. i think this notion of the complete neighborhoods it's important as much as we can it's important the benefits come on line. i think that having affordable housing and having transit coming on later it's not meeting
9:18 pm
the impacts of the development when the practice writing project is built so i'm happy to support >> commissioner. >> so i'm supportive of lowering it relative to sunset. i mean, we know it's changed. just a question on how we're doing spend the money. i know a lot of those ardent controlled. itself money we've received how are we spending it in a timely way and if not what's holding that up? >> smird of the planning staff. i think i would describe our income we just only now started to see income coming in. we only had last year a half
9:19 pm
hour million dollars coming now we're up to $2 million. we're looking at our projections and working with the agencies to line up the project when the money coming in. we come to you every year with a report of what's going on of impact fees. speaking on behalf of the eastern neighborhood we're still in process >> i mean, the money that's coming in is 15 percent of the 20 percent. >> yeah. that's right. that's correct most of that money is initially payments or
9:20 pm
smaller projects that doesn't defer at all >> we know likely it's two years ago. >> for eastern neighborhoods we're seeing a fairly robust increase. >> do we have a plan to spend that or is it still in process. >> it's kind of both. we look at what argue revenues are we sit down with the agencies and find how to lion the monies. we essentially have a program but they change from year to year. for eastern neighborhoods we're goothd to spend our monies. so we're going to be starting the process next week. >> commissioner.
9:21 pm
>> yeah. to staff. the timing that would come into play with the construction documents was this part of the original legislation and that will still continue; right? >> the overall original legislation from 2010 did many things one of which completely standard i see the process. we have a great deal of certainty because the gatekeeper is the one who receives the money and anyway's the money gets paid par we've had a great assurance we're going to be collecting the impact fees >> and that will still stay in place. >> that's correct. >> so all osgood parts that
9:22 pm
originated are there. >> i'm going to make a motions to go ahead and recommend to the board that the deferral program expire. >> second. >> commissioner. >> you know i have a question i typically the difference between time of first construction to sift of counselcy is like 18 to 20 months? >> that's contradict i believe it's an average that the fees were deferred for about two years. >> is it all triggered by the first person - >> those would be paid before anyone can move into the building. >> yeah. at the very first
9:23 pm
all fees are due. >> and commissioners i want to say if i may the time size is depending upon the project it was 18 months to two years. >> and the certificate of occupancy is when. >> when the tenant occupies the building. >> i tend to agree with the architect. right now we're in a era of low interest rates but interest rates will climb. and if you're looking at affordability. if you have to borrow the money
9:24 pm
for the fees before your construction loan it is just going to think passed along. in the long run you're going to have better results with the deferral. i would be in favor of the proposal to keep it going with the 20 percent standard down payment citywide with no seed money a standard interest not the blended interest because you don't know what the interest rate is going to be >> i have a question. when we hesitately supported the fee deferral a few years ago at that time the question arose
9:25 pm
with no funds available those neighborhoods would indeed fill those impacts by which new constructions we ask can the process of designing and completing documents for implementations be ready when the stream of funding starts. you said you are now just a skip away from having the funding. do you have complete construction documents, plans and ideas of how to seen the implementation because between having the money and still needing to design will take another year in some cases. i'm concerned we're creating another lag to deliver the projects to the neighborhood who
9:26 pm
was suffered because of these fees over the years >> you know the first depends upon the project and again speaking on behalf of the eastern neighborhood. in a lot of the cases we have the fund from other sources one of them is 17th and folsom. we're leaning, you know, those projects do take time and one of the most helpful thing is fund to kind of get the design and sort of the predevelopment kind of going. so that's what it sounds like our money is good there >> and for the future and this perhaps a very, very go optimistic i idea for the
9:27 pm
department to have some rainy day fund if the situation comes up again at least the suit of designing could continue in order when the funds come back the projects will be able to move into construction. >> certainly this was the intent so we could start designing the programs. but you're right i mean, there's a very long lead up time especially for the larger project. it's important for the larger projects it only recommendation a smaller cost. those projects require many sources from many locates we have one eastern neighborhood plan the impact fees only pay
9:28 pm
for a small percentage. so some of those projects even if the impact fees coming in will not be released we have to depreciate other source of money >> i think it would follow-on what mr. walters comment. i would agree it would be helpful to know what percentage if there are a anticipated projects what their costs would be and their anticipated impact fees would contribute to that. that's hard to see if you're seeking for a particular community improvement. is there a way to actually better engage the outcome. we've had cranes everywhere we
9:29 pm
don't know if it's at the economy. i'm not sure but the best way through feedback or the survey for developers when they apply for the program would be useful. 98 percent sounds like it's high. i think it would be useful to have that information it would be hard for people to support it if the future >> as you know the program is ending shortly maybe this is a little bit lost but our staff implementation staff is working hard to project the incoming
9:30 pm
projects. this come from the data from the pipeline and when we'll get the fund and their matching that with granting and other implementation work. in large work we're doing the forecasting and making sure we have the projects on the ground >> does this money get leveraged to do the other sources or. >> commissioner. >> ms. rogers i don't know